Universities are made of people and the politics* of people run things, no matter what is written on the wall. The people who run those institutions are motivated by the same human motivations as anyone else. And there is an academic hierarchy and an administrative hierarchy and the actors on the latter side tends to be far more hard nosed than those on the former, though there are plenty of hard nosed players on the academic side too. In some the President is a fig leaf from the academic side while the deans wield the real power; in others the president or chancellor is the straightforward CEO. There is innumerable literature on this matter both analytic and fiction (as in stories, not "fake news" science I mean -- think David Lodge). From aphorisms like "science advances one funeral at a time" to the continual travails of tenure, adjuncts, post docs etc this is all very well known.

You can see the attitude I described in my "I don't get it" comment in the US universities that pay so much money for their athletic programs. Doing so gets the "job" done.

This is not intended as any sort of cynical view -- I very much enjoyed my time in university setting both as a student and researcher. In fact it's the opposite: universities must operate this way to even exist. But behind the veneer it was little different from my time in corporate research. Well, more bureaucratic.

* I don't mean in the partisan sense, just in the "relations of people" sense.

Well, she says that the university is supporting her free speech rights to publicly object to their policy. And from an ideological point of view I think the first amendment is excessively restricted.

Be all that as it may: the university, like any other corporation public and private, has good telelogical reason to pursue this course and what I don't get is that she doesn't acknowledge that. They could be right or wrong overall in implementation but by ignoring that I don't really think she has an argument.